View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 01:42

The23rdman wrote:The link Sydner posted that started the moon hoax debate had a quote from NASA... (Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday. I'll admit I don't know how reliable the source was.


Ok, so here is one answer from the summary of the report (page 3):

At the present time, and assuming chemical propulsion, the permissible exposure levels would not allow
a human crew to undertake a Mars mission and might also seriously limit long-term Moon activity.


This is where context is important. They are not saying (at least in this quote, which must be the one where the headline came from) that going back to the moon itself would be not recommended - they refer to "long-term Moon activity." Which makes a lot more sense.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby The23rdman » 01 Jan 2013, 01:55

Nothing like stretching the truth for a good story. ;)
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 01:57

The23rdman wrote:Nothing like stretching the truth for a good story. ;)


Always! In general, news reports should be considered markers for points of interest - but we really need to look at the primary sources. Especially when it comes to science news. Reporters are notorious for getting it wrong.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 02:09

As I don't really plan on taking detailed notes, I'll post interesting quotes as I make my way through the article. From the bottom of p-3-4:

The committee found that current knowledge of the free-space GCR component of the radiation environment is sufficient to support human missions to the Moon. However, human missions to Mars have not yet been sufficiently defined to make a judgment about the effects of the GCR environment on astronauts.


GCR refers to "Galactic Cosmic Radiation".

SPEs are very intense but occur over a relatively short period of time (hours to days). Because SPEs generally have energies much lower than those of GCR, their effects can be greatly mitigated with the proper amount of shielding. However, the timing of their occurrence is difficult to predict; an astronaut performing an extravehicular activity could receive an acute or fatal dose of radiation if shelter could not be reached in time.


SPE refers to "solar particle event".
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 02:15

Page 5:

NASA is considering the following radiation protection strategies for the human exploration of the Moon:
the use of surface habitat and spacecraft structure and components, provisions for emergency radiation shelters,
implementation of active and passive dosimetry, scheduling of extravehicular operation to avoid excessive radiation exposure, and proper consideration of the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle. These strategies, if properly implemented, are adequate to meet the radiation protection requirements for short-term lunar missions. In addition to the above strategies, longer-duration lunar and Mars missions will require a reduction of the uncertainty in current predictions of radiological risk, plus the possible development of medical countermeasures


So it seems Scepcop was incorrect to quote this report (or an article referring to this report) as indicating that NASA today doesn't feel it is safe to go back to the moon for a similar duration as that during the Apollo missions. the hesitation in the report refers to longer-term missions.

Scepcop: will you edit your treatise to reflect this?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 02:18

FYI: the above quotations were all from the summary.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 02:26

Here's a NASA report that was drafted in March, 1973- after the Apollo missions. Looks relevant, though I haven't read it yet.

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT -
PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 02:52

Misha: here is an answer to your question about did NASA raise the issue of solar flare danger publicly prior to the mission. The answer appears to be that they did:

This is from the press kit for the Apollo 11 mission: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_PressKit.pdf

p.81:

Environment - No air, no wlnd, and no moisture. The
temperature ranges from 243 degrees i n the two-week lunar
day to 279 degrees below zero i n the two-week lunar night.
Gravity is one-sixth that of Earth. Micrometeoroids pelt the
Moon (there is no atmosphere t o burn them up). [b]Radiation
might present a problem during periods of unusual solar activity[/b
]. (my emphasis)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 03:02

i didn't get a hit in the Apollo 12 press kit, but this is from the Apollo 13 one: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/A13_PressKit.pdf

p.49

Charged Particle Lunar Environment Experiment (CPLEE)
The s c i e n t i f i c objective of the Charged Particle Lunar
Environment Experiment is to measure the p a r t i c l e energies of
protons and electrons that reach the lunar surface from the
Sun. Increased knowledge on the energy d l s t r i b u t l o n of these
p a r t i c l e s will help us understand how they perturb the Earth-
Moon system. A t some point e l e c t r o n s and protons i n the
magnetospheric t a i l of the Earth are accelerated and plunge
i n t o the terrestrial atmosphere causing the spectacular
auroras and the Van Allen radiation. When the Moon is i n
i n t e r p l a n e t a r y space the CPLEE measures proton and e l e c t r o n s
from solar flares which results i n magnetic storms In the
E a r t h ' s atmosphere. Similar instruments have been flown on
Javelin rockets and on satellites. The lunar surface, however,
allows data t o be gathered over a long period of time and from
a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e platform i n space.


While this section is not about safety concerns specifically (it describes an experiment they plan to do to learn more about these flares) it does mention solar flares and the Van Allen belt directly.

The same paragraph from the Apollo 11 mission is repeated with regard to risk to astronauts re: solar flares: p. 70

Environment - No air, no wind, and no moisture. The
temperature ranges from 243 degrees F. i n the two-week lunar
day t o 279 degrees below zero ir the two-week lunar night.
Gravity is one-sixth that of Earth. Micrometeoroids p e l t
the Moon s i n c e there I s no atmosphere t o burn them up.
Radiation might present a problem during periods of unusual
solar a c t i v i t y
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 03:06

More from the Apollo 13 press kit: p.27

During coast periods between rnidcourse corrections, the
spacecraft w i l l be in the passive thermal control (PTC) or
"barbecue" mode i n which the spacecraft will rotate slowly
about its r o l l a x i s t o s t a b i i i z e spacecraft thermal response
t o the continuous solar exposure.


This directly references the numerous minor solar flares that would be expected to hit the rocket and a bit about how they counter for them.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 03:25

Thanks, Arouet. This will take some time to read. Keep in mind, if I may play devil's advocate, we are still relying on NASA's word solely. Aside from Percy, Bennett, Wisnewksi, Rene, Kaysing or White, do we have any other sources out there which offers a counterpoint to the radiation record. So in essence, I am asking you guys to do what 23rdman suggest in "zetetic" form. Find something in the opposing camp's argument which you think is logical and worthy against NASA's radiation claim. Maybe this can help define the argument further?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 03:40

Misha wrote:Thanks, Arouet. This will take some time to read. Keep in mind, if I may play devil's advocate, we are still relying on NASA's word solely.


Sure - but I looked for the NRC report because Scepcop and Sydney specifically relied on it to support their point - and it appears they did so erroneously.

I looked for the press kits because you had asked whether NASA had voiced concerns about the solar flare risk at the time. Unless we're going to suggest the press-kits are fake (and I assume someone still has an origiinal press kit lying around and could check if that were the case) then it appears that they did publicly address the issue at the time.



Aside from Percy, Bennett, Wisnewksi, Rene, Kaysing or White, do we have any other sources out there which offers a counterpoint to the radiation record. So in essence, I am asking you guys to do what 23rdman suggest in "zetetic" form. Find something in the opposing camp's argument which you think is logical and worthy against NASA's radiation claim. Maybe this can help define the argument further?


I started this thread looking at White's paper and the Cluvius summary and proposed questions that needed to be answered. Maybe you can take a look at those posts and see if there is anything I missed.

Again: the point is to try and address these issues in a somewhat organized manner. Let's clarify the questions, and then try and answer them.

I'd like to get some agreement on the questions to be answered, then we can see if we can answer them to mutual satisfaction!

Re: the conspiracy camp, there is a lot out there. Given that you and syd have apparently spent some time with that material, perhaps you could suggest some materials on this issue, aside from the White paper that we've already been discussing, that you find convincing on this point, and we can use those as starting points.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 06:00

Ok, so I decided to start watching Whites "Radioactive Anomaly" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM

I watched part 1. He details that in the late 1990s-early 2000s scientists learned that some solar flares reach close to the speed of light. There is no indication that this was known in the 1960s and 1970s. He cites several sources that astronauts caught out in the open would be in pretty bad shape.

His one line referring to the apollo missions is along the lines him musing how the astronauts would have not had effects while being subject to those flares. He makes no mention of whether such flares did actually hit the astronauts. He also notes some radiation levels in the belt, notes they are twice what humans should absorb, but doesn't indicate the effects of shielding.

He spends some time quoting some forum user named "svector" who swears at him a lot. Unless I missed it, he doesn't indicate that svector is anyone in particular. Not sure how some random internet abuser is relevant to much.

It may be that some of these issues are clarified in later episodes, but I'm going to post as I go along. Otherwise I'll forget.

Anyone else have a different impression of episode 1? I was not terribly impressed.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 06:48

Episode 2 didn't hold much of interest. The only relevant part was where he seemed to suggest that the Apollo must have gone through the highest radiation point. But I'm going to hold off on this, since I'm assuming he'll elaborate later.

Episdoe 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDS ... =endscreen

Strange episode: he spends a few minutes chronicling space missions that would have reached the 500km beginning of the Van Allen Belt. he seems to think it significant that less than 10% did. He doesn't say why he thinks its significant.

He brings up an apparent contradiction by phil plait. He refers to whether the hubble goes through the van allen belt (the low point of the south atlantic anomaly). White says hubble couldn't go through the SAA, being at 250km above the earth. He says that NASA puts the anomaly at 500km and therefore Plait must be wrong.

I decided to look it up. According to wikipedia, the SAA dips to an altitude of 200km (124mi):

The Van Allen radiation belts are symmetric about the Earth's magnetic axis, which is tilted with respect to the Earth's rotational axis by an angle of ~11 degrees. The intersection between the magnetic and rotation axes of the Earth is located not at the Earth's centre, but some 500 kilometres (300 mi) further North. Because of this asymmetry, the inner Van Allen belt is closest to the Earth's surface over the south Atlantic ocean where it dips down to 200km (124mi) altitude, and farthest from the Earth's surface over the north Pacific ocean.[2]


It seems that White may have been mixing up his stats.

The wiki article cites this report: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 6/25/text/ which refers to hubble not taking pictures while it goes through the SAA.

"Achieving 100,000 exposures this soon is really a remarkable achievement," Williams says, "especially when you take into account Hubble's low-Earth orbit and that it cannot observe for about 50 percent of each orbit because of the Earth's occultation (when Earth blocks Hubble's view) and the South Atlantic Anomaly (a high radiation belt through which Hubble cannot observe).


A google search shows many sites referring to hubble going through the SAA.

White makes a big deal of quoting from the Goddard site in his video, as his basis for NASA saying the SAA would be higher than the shuttles go. I don't know what link he was on, but I found the following:

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/rosat ... _saad.html
The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA, the large red area in the image) is a dip in the Earth's magnetic field which allows cosmic rays, and charged particles to reach lower into the atmosphere. This interferes with communication with satellites, aircraft, and the Space Shuttle. While there are theories as to why this occurs, the geologic origin is not yet known.


They refer to it interfering with aircraft let alone shuttles!

Perhaps White corrects himself in later videos? But he seems to just plain be wrong here. It is difficult to see how he makes this mistake, given how many sources there seem to be out there describing the contours of the SAA. Hubble seems to unquestionably go through the SAA about 10 times a day or so. And other craft have reported doing so as well.

Misha, Syd: can you shed some light here? Am I missing something?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 06:55

Arouet wrote:Ok, so I decided to start watching Whites "Radioactive Anomaly" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM

I watched part 1. He details that in the late 1990s-early 2000s scientists learned that some solar flares reach close to the speed of light. There is no indication that this was known in the 1960s and 1970s. He cites several sources that astronauts caught out in the open would be in pretty bad shape.

His one line referring to the apollo missions is along the lines him musing how the astronauts would have not had effects while being subject to those flares. He makes no mention of whether such flares did actually hit the astronauts. He also notes some radiation levels in the belt, notes they are twice what humans should absorb, but doesn't indicate the effects of shielding.

He spends some time quoting some forum user named "svector" who swears at him a lot. Unless I missed it, he doesn't indicate that svector is anyone in particular. Not sure how some random internet abuser is relevant to much.

It may be that some of these issues are clarified in later episodes, but I'm going to post as I go along. Otherwise I'll forget.

Anyone else have a different impression of episode 1? I was not terribly impressed.


Arouet, I'm pretty sure the NASA press kits are authentic. Let me clarify what I mean by public. By this I mean whether the radiation issue was talked about on "Boob tube" or any of the mainstream presses such as the NY Times, Washington Times, Boston Globe and so forth. That would be interesting if this could be found. And yes, we did not have the Internet at the time, but I will look for this too.

I'm pleased you watched Part 1. It is roughly ten minutes long. Please watch the other 22 segments, though. This will help center the argument considering Jarrah's work is well researched for at least the video information.

When you say astronauts caught out in the open (referring to Jarrah's information), are you speaking below the Van Allen belts, outside the Van Allen belts, or on the moon?

As for absorbing the radiation and shielding, you have to view all 23 (I think that is roughly the number on his radiation series) and most likely his other series on Apollo. I'll have to go back and check too.

As for Svector, I can't say who he is. He may be mentioned, or his background in another of Jarrah's series. However, Jarrah does critique NASA's Phil Plait and Jay Windley and others throughout the moonfaker.com series. Plait also critiques Jarrah. It is very interesting to say the least.

Again, I want to be clear that I am not only referring to the radiation issue strictly on Jarrah's research, though it is good. I have read and have taken into consideration Percy and Benett's book - "Dark Moon" and Wisnewski's book - "One Small Step" also.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests